Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

Xios

Do you guys think it's justifiable? I personally don't think it is, and I'm certain that 99% of people have never actually seen what torture is actually like, I saw what Christopher Hitchens did for waterboarding, he didn't last 3 seconds on the board. Granted, he's not a hardened criminal/soldier, but still, he must have some resolve and he gave up instantly.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1216/667281-torture/

A majority of Americans believe that torture of suspected terrorists is justified, a new poll reported today, just days after a scathing report into the CIA's brutal treatment of detainees in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 58% of people believe that in general, looking ahead, the torture of suspected terrorists can be justified "often" or "sometimes".

39% said torture could not be justified, the survey showed.

Asked specifically if the CIA's treatment of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives in the wake of 9/11 was justified, the poll found Americans overwhelmingly in favour by a margin of almost two to one – 59% to 31%.

The poll findings follow publication of a US Senate report last week into the CIA's post-9/11 interrogation program which found the methods used were far harsher than previously disclosed and were not productive.

The interrogation techniques included beatings, rectal rehydration, sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, confinement in wooden boxes and threats of physical or sexual violence against family members.

The Washington Post poll was broadly in line with several other recent surveys which have indicated that most Americans are unmoved by the scathing criticism of the CIA program.

Tzardine

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

DrumSteve

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What?

Really?

In most cases the info gained is useless. Waterboard someone for 10 minutes and they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop i.e. false confessions.

I can guarantee you, most americans believe torture is justified, once they don't have to be the ones to administer it.

Wolf Club

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

It clearly said in the report that the torture methods used by the CIA were completely ineffective in gathering intelligence. If it was in any ways useful there might be a grounding for your argument (I still wouldn't think so), but the fact that there isn't makes it a massive folly as well as completely inhumane.

Jawgap

No, because it doesn't work.

Talk to anyone involved in conducting interrogations and they'll tell you how counter-productive it is.

I heard one FBI agent who specialised in interrogation say that the most powerful weapon he knew of for getting someone to talk was a can of Coke.

Likewise, some of the most productive human source intelligence to come out in WWII came from the Direct Interrogation Centres where PoWs were given good food, nice conditions and decent medical treatment and they sung like canaries.

The rooms were also bugged so conversations could be listened to.

Xios

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What if you do torture an innocent person.... You think they're gonna just walk away?

What if the law makers are corrupt, and the laws are unjust, you think its OK for torture in an oppressive society?

what happens, when those with the power to torture others, realise that they can get people to say what ever they want, what if they use it to further their political goals or business interests.

ShowMeTheCash

America view themselves as the White knights, defenders of the plannet!
Of course they think torture is justified most people are idiots! And sure it's not like they will need to torture any Americans!

As long as it is some "Rag head" from the middle east then they could not give a monkeys!

But let's not really look at who are the real terrorist to this plannet... I dunno a country that has been complicite in every war over the last 10 decades??

Tzardine wrote:

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

No they just get bombed by a far!

Hoop66

If you resort to torture then you lose any right to a moral standpoint. In the case of the US, this is a huge part of what they've built their plans for a "better world" on.

They decide who's naughty (gets "regime change" in their stocking) and who's nice (gets billions of dollars of aid and weapons). So...the people making globally reaching moral decisions are themselves entirely immoral. Surprise!

shanered

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

I am pretty sure alot of people tortured didn't commit a crime which could be proven, no court, no trial etc...
There was a huge chance they were completely law abiding innocent people.
And you making the assumpution that their confession saved lives rather then ended lives.
More likely they could have named local people who ended up getting a drone strike on their family home kids and all causing more death than preservation of life imo.

Anyway, my thoughts are that the torture was not a positive thing in any form.
And supporters of torture are truley misguided individuals.
And unless you support torture down in your local police station as a form of interregation you should support torture of these people by the CIA.

JJayoo

Depends what kind of torture purely physical pain/psychological and depends on the reason.

seamus

It's not really surprising, it seems like common sense that torture is an effective way to get someone to talk, in the same way that execution seems like a common sense way to deter crime.

But what seems common sense or obvious can often turn out to be completely incorrect.

Torture is physical example of the Begging the question logical fallacy. In that, you torture someone to obtain information in the assumption that they possess that information.
But you don't know that they possess this information. You torture them, they provide the information, and you believe you were right all along. But you weren't.
You're using the outcome of the exercise (the provision of information) to assume the premise of the exercise (this guy has information).

In other words, if you knew they had the information, you wouldn't need to torture them. If you don't know that they have the information, then anything they tell you while being tortured is useless.

I imagine the numbers who believe torture is justified would be similar in many western nations. But that doesn't make it any more or less effective (or more or less justified).

cml387

I think you'll find that this poll only applies to Americans torturing other races.

The_Valeyard

If we lower our standards to that of the torturers and terrorists, then they win.

ShowMeTheCash

JJayoo wrote: »

Depends what kind of torture purely physical pain/psychological and depends on the reason.

You would do well in America they love this kind of thinking!
So if we tell you that this guy was a "bad man" you would be OK with it?

Bill Ratified - Let's break out the clamps!

Timberrrrrrrr

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What if torture leads to the death of an innocent person?

mfceiling

To be fair, most Americans believe that America is the capital of the world and that eating junk food is good for you.

LucidLife

Surveys over three decades showed 49% of Americans knew they dropped the first atomic bomb....need we say more?

Timberrrrrrrr

LucidLife wrote: »

Surveys over three decades showed 49% of Americans knew they dropped the first atomic bomb....need we say more?

They tend to have some difficulties with science too

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/unbelievable

n a 2012 survey by the National Science Foundation, 25% of American respondents answered that the sun orbits the Earth [1]. A recent AP-GFK poll found that as many as 4 in 10 American adults doubt evolution, over half aren't confident that the Big Bang took place, just under 40% don't believe that pollution is causing climate change, and 15% don't believe in the efficacy or safety of vaccines[2]. Surveys like these are good at eliciting disbelief and a laugh, but they beg the question: Why do so many Americans reject scientific theories?

wilhelm roentgen

mfceiling wrote: »

To be fair, most Americans believe that America is the capital of the world and that eating junk food is good for you.

And 25% of them still think Elvis is alive

mikom

Land of the free and home of the brave (once you are the one holding the battery clamps).

Xterminator

ask leading questions - get loaded results. Polls are paid for and generally biased in favour of the sponsor.

But the classic scenario presented can be along the lines "there is a nuclear bomb going to go off in a city, and you have the terrorist in custody. does saving a million lives justify torturing the individual?"

most people will say yes to that. irish, american doesnt matter.

however in the real world its not black and white but grey. personally i do believe that there are scenarios where torture is justified.

What if torture leads to the death of an innocent person?

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

BuilderPlumber

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

mikom

Xterminator wrote: »

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

How do you torture a drone?

Uncle Ruckus

Most Muricans think the Earth is 6,000 years old, gay sex causes tornados, wrestling is real and McDonald's is an essential party of a healthy balanced diet also.

Timberrrrrrrr

Xterminator wrote: »

ask leading questions - get loaded results. Polls are paid for and generally biased in favour of the sponsor.

But the classic scenario presented can be along the lines "there is a nuclear bomb going to go off in a city, and you have the terrorist in custody. does saving a million lives justify torturing the individual?"

most people will say yes to that. irish, american doesnt matter.

however in the real world its not black and white but grey. personally i do believe that there are scenarios where torture is justified.

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

There are people in Guantanamo now, RIGHT NOW who have been tortured, Never been charged, never had xa chance to speak to a lawyer and no sign of them getting out. Are they innocent civilians or guilty terrorists? Are you saying it's justifiable to grab someone off the street (obviously intelligence collected says the guy is a terrorist) and torture him to death on the off chance he MAY know something?

Timberrrrrrrr

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

If you have waited that long then the "imminent" threat has either been carried out or the mission has been canceled for another time/place/date.

DeadHand

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I dunno a country that has been complicite in every war over the last 10 decades??

Really? Every war?

The US was complicit in the Russian civil war, Spainish civil war and Biafran war or a dozen others I could name? They instigated or entered wrongly the World Wars?

Or is it more likely you are spouting lazy anti-American nonsense?

ShowMeTheCash

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

I think I saw this movie?

LucidLife

DeadHand wrote: »

Really? Every war?

The US was complicit in the Russian civil war, Spainish civil war and Biafran war or a dozen others I could name? They instigated or entered wrongly the World Wars?

Or is it more likely you are spouting lazy anti-American nonsense?

There is a saying 'War is God's way of teachings Americans geography'. An American told me this while I lived in America

irish_dave_83

Torture itself is justifiable if managed responsibly. If it prevents the death of innocents then I see the justification.
The question of whether it has been managed properly should be paramount here and evidentally it has not been which is more worrying.

Dont get me wrong the act itself is horrendous and possibly for little gain, but if they torture a known member of a terrorist organisation and find that he does not have any information, that in itself is information gained.

As a previous poster said innocent people do not get tortured, and lets not be naive - if a US operative was captured I have little doubt that they would be tortured also.

JJayoo

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You would do well in America they love this kind of thinking!
So if we tell you that this guy was a "bad man" you would be OK with it?

Bill Ratified - Let's break out the clamps!

So instead of asking me to expand on my opinion you decide to ramble on :rolleyes:

Psychological torture should never be allowed.

However if it was 100% a fact that an individual had vital information, for example if a person had been kidnapped, and if that individual simply decided not to release that information, then I would have no problem in them applying some force.

The 2012 April Jones case in Wales case comes to mind. The guy who took her just decided not to talk.